Laparoscopic Excision of Infarcted Accessory Spleen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An accessory spleen is present in about 10-30% of the population and, usually, does not cause symptoms. We present a case report of an unusual presentation of accessory spleen infarction, with a literature review. A 12-year old male presented with acute left-upper quadrant pain that slowly resolved. An ultrasound and computed tomography scan showed a 3.5 x 2.5 x 2 cm solid mass abutting and displacing the splenic flexure of the colon, with surrounding inflammatory changes. This was interpreted as a colonic duplication cyst, and the boy was treated with antibiotics and underwent elective laparoscopic exploration. It was removed laparoscopically without complication and, on pathologic examination, proved to be consistent with an infarcted accessory spleen. Less than two dozen similar cases of accessory spleen infarction have been reported in the literature, most presenting with acute abdominal pain. Preoperative diagnoses included appendicitis, ovarian torsion, neoplasm, and, in our case, colonic duplication. The natural course of infarcted accessory spleen would be to atrophy, but, even with advanced imaging techniques, it may be impossible to diagnose infarcted accessory spleen with enough confidence to avoid surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".